Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 43 references

SAMFusion: Sensor-Adaptive Multimodal Fusion for 3D Object Detection in Adverse Weather

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read SAMFusion, a four-sensor fusion method for autonomous driving, claims a 17.2 AP gain over the next best method for vulnerable pedestrians in long-range foggy scenes by learning to weight modalities by distance and visibility.

desk verdict A plausible four-sensor fusion architecture with a headline AP gain that can't be verified from the provided text; worth sending to review but needs experiments. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.16408 v1 pith:ZNO4SJ3N submitted 2025-08-22 cs.CV

Edoardo Palladin , Roland Dietze , Praveen Narayanan , Mario Bijelic , Felix Heide This is my paper
classification cs.CV
keywords 3DobjectdetectionmultimodalsensorfusionadverseweathergatedNIRimagingradarBird'sEyeViewtransformerdecoderautonomousdriving
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

SAMFusion is a 3D object detector for autonomous vehicles that fuses four sensors—RGB camera, LiDAR, gated near-infrared camera, and radar—using attention-based blending on the Bird's Eye View plane. Its transformer decoder learns to upweight whichever modalities remain reliable at a given distance and visibility, so when LiDAR and RGB degrade in fog, snow, or night, gated NIR and radar can carry the detection. The paper's central reported result is a 17.2 average precision improvement over the next best method for vulnerable pedestrians at long range in dense fog. If correct, this narrows the gap between fusion methods validated in clear weather and real-world adverse conditions.

What carries the argument

The core mechanism is a sensor-adaptive fusion pipeline: attentive depth-based blending of image and range features, learned refinement on the Bird's Eye View plane, and a transformer decoder that assigns per-modality weights based on distance and visibility. The gated NIR and radar streams provide the redundant information that lets the network detect objects when RGB and LiDAR are unreliable.

What would settle it

Evaluate the trained model on a held-out foggy sequence where LiDAR is physically blocked or soiled while RGB and gated NIR remain clear. If detection accuracy falls to the level of a camera-only baseline instead of retaining the radar and gated-NIR advantage, the claimed sensor adaptivity to missing or degraded range input is not real.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that existing multimodal fusion methods fail in adverse weather because they depend on a unimodal query generator and on LiDAR-based depth projections, which break when LiDAR degrades. SAMFusion instead fuses RGB, LiDAR, gated NIR, and radar through attentive depth-based blending and learned refinement on the Bird's Eye View plane, with a transformer decoder that weighs modalities according to distance and visibility. This lets the network lean on gated NIR and radar when camera and LiDAR signals are corrupted by fog, snow, or soiling. The reported result is a 17.2 AP improvement over the next best method for vulnerable pedestrians in long-distance, foggy scenes.

Load-bearing premise

The method assumes that a sensor's reliability can be predicted from distance and visibility cues in the training distribution, so the learned weighting will transfer to the fog, snow, and soiling conditions it was trained on.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The reported 17.2 AP improvement on vulnerable pedestrians at long range in fog is a concrete gain for a safety-critical subset of autonomous driving.
  • The same architecture can handle clear weather and adverse weather without switching models, because the decoder learns to reweight sensors on the fly.
  • When LiDAR point clouds become asymmetric or sparse in fog, the method can still rely on gated NIR and radar rather than collapsing to a single degraded modality.
  • The learned distance- and visibility-based weighting is a general way to combine sensors with complementary failure modes.
  • The approach extends beyond fog to night-time, snow, and sensor soiling, since those conditions affect the same sensor reliability cues.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The 17.2 AP figure is reported on a specific foggy subset; a deployment test would show whether the learned weights transfer to unseen sensor angles, weather intensities, or soiling patterns without retraining.
  • A natural ablation is to remove the gated NIR stream and keep the other three sensors; if the improvement persists, the sensor-adaptive weighting itself is doing the work rather than the extra sensor.
  • The distance- and visibility-conditioned weighting could transfer to other BEV perception tasks, such as occupancy prediction or online mapping, where weather-driven sensor degradation is also a bottleneck.
  • A field test with physically blocked or soiled LiDAR, while RGB and gated NIR remain clean, would separate the contribution of the attention weighting from the inherent robustness of gated NIR and radar.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes SAMFusion, a 3D object detection method that fuses RGB, LiDAR, gated NIR, and radar via attentive depth-based blending, BEV-plane refinement, and a transformer decoder whose modality weighting is conditioned on distance and visibility. The stated contribution is improved robustness in adverse weather, with a headline improvement of 17.2 AP over the next-best method for vulnerable pedestrians at long range in fog. The submitted text contains an abstract, an introduction, Figure 1, and a reference list; the method and experimental sections are not present in the supplied manuscript, so the central claims cannot be verified from the submitted material.

Significance. The problem is important: adverse weather degrades sensors asymmetrically, and existing fusion methods are typically validated only in clear weather. Combining gated NIR and radar with RGB and LiDAR is a plausible direction, and the distance/visibility-conditioned weighting is a reasonable mechanism if implemented carefully. However, as submitted, the paper's significance is unsubstantiated. I see no machine-checked proofs, reproducible code, or quantitative experimental evidence; the only evidence is the qualitative Figure 1 and an unsupported AP number. If the complete paper contains rigorous experiments on a relevant benchmark with baselines, ablations, and error bars, this could be a useful contribution.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract and §1] The central empirical claim is a 17.2 AP improvement over the next-best method, but the submitted manuscript contains no evaluation section, no dataset description, no protocol, no baselines, no error bars, and no ablation. Without these, the claim is not assessable. Please supply the full method and experiments, including the exact metric definition (AP at which IoU threshold, 3D or BEV, class-wise breakdown), the definition of 'long distances', the fog/visibility conditions, the list of compared methods, dataset splits, and repeated-run statistics. Figure 1 alone does not support the headline number.
  2. [§1 / architecture description] The decoder weighs modalities based on distance and visibility. In fog, LiDAR point clouds are asymmetrically degraded and camera-based visibility estimates are degraded as well; if the conditioning inputs are computed from the very sensors whose failures the method is meant to compensate, the learned weighting can be systematically biased in the target condition. The manuscript does not state how distance and visibility are estimated, nor does it provide an experiment separating the effect of clean versus degraded conditioning. Please specify the conditioning source and include a robustness test, e.g., comparing oracle versus estimated visibility, perturbing visibility inputs, or reporting per-fog-density performance.
  3. [General (no experimental section)] The paper's contribution is empirical in nature, yet no table or figure with quantitative comparisons appears anywhere in the provided text. A paper that introduces a new fusion architecture and a sensor-adaptive weighting scheme needs at least: a main results table, ablations for each proposed component (gated NIR/radar inclusion, depth-based blending, BEV refinement, distance/visibility conditioning), and a per-condition breakdown for clear, foggy, snowy, and night scenes. Without these, the architecture's effectiveness cannot be separated from the choice of training setup or the baseline implementations.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§1] The phrase 'attentive, depth-based blending schemes' is used without equations or a figure describing the mechanism. Please define the fusion operations precisely, including how depth is obtained and how attention is computed across modalities.
  2. [§1] The term 'learned refinement on the Bird's Eye View (BEV) plane' is vague. Please clarify what is refined, which features are concatenated, and how the refinement interacts with the transformer decoder.
  3. [Abstract/§1] The abstract's claim of 'bridging the gap between ideal conditions and real-world edge cases' is qualitative. If this is meant to indicate generalization across weather conditions, the experiments should explicitly test unseen fog densities or unseen sensor degradations.
  4. [Figure 1] The qualitative detections in Figure 1 would be more informative with annotations showing the ground-truth/prediction agreement and the scene conditions. As presented, the figure does not allow the reader to gauge detection quality or compare against any baseline.
  5. [References] The reference list is extensive, but several citations in the introduction (e.g., [66,67] for gated depth) appear only in the introduction and are not connected to a method description in the provided text. Once the full method is restored, please ensure every citation is used and that the related-work discussion is complete.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: SAMFusion is an empirical fusion architecture; the reported AP gain is a benchmark outcome, not a quantity defined into the method.

full rationale

I examined the abstract, introduction, and reference list for any load-bearing step that reduces to its own inputs. The paper's central claim is a 17.2 AP improvement on vulnerable pedestrians in long-distance foggy scenes, which is presented as a benchmark result against external baselines; no equation or loss definition in the provided text shows this quantity being fitted and then relabeled as a prediction. The method's use of distance- and visibility-based weighting is an architectural design choice, and while the skeptic's concern that these conditioning inputs may be degraded in fog is a legitimate correctness risk, it is not a circularity: the model does not define its target metric in terms of those conditioning signals. The self-citations (e.g., Bijelic et al. for gated imaging) motivate the inclusion of gated NIR and radar, but they are accompanied by other independent citations and do not by themselves force the reported AP result; they are prior empirical evidence, not an assumed theorem. No equation, definition, or fitting procedure is quoted that would exhibit a reduction of the claimed improvement to the method's own inputs. Accordingly, no circular step is identified.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper is an empirical architecture paper; no physical constants or ad hoc fitted numbers are introduced in the available text. The model's learned weights are standard for deep learning and are not listed as free parameters. The central claim rests on domain assumptions about sensor behavior and dataset representativeness.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Gated NIR cameras provide accurate depth and high SNR in fog, snow, rain, and night.
    Stated in the introduction citing Bijelic et al.; the whole method depends on gated NIR being a useful modality.
  • domain assumption The evaluation datasets are representative of real-world adverse weather and the labels are reliable.
    The paper claims bridging real-world edge cases; evaluation validity depends on this.
  • ad hoc to paper Learned modality weighting based on distance and visibility can generalize to unseen adverse conditions.
    The core design choice of SAMFusion; no theoretical guarantee is presented in the available text.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of SAMFusion: Sensor-Adaptive Multimodal Fusion for 3D Object Detection in Adverse Weather." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZNO4SJ3N

@misc{pith2026250816408,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: SAMFusion: Sensor-Adaptive Multimodal Fusion for 3D Object Detection in Adverse Weather},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZNO4SJ3N}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.16408}
}
read the original abstract

Multimodal sensor fusion is an essential capability for autonomous robots, enabling object detection and decision-making in the presence of failing or uncertain inputs. While recent fusion methods excel in normal environmental conditions, these approaches fail in adverse weather, e.g., heavy fog, snow, or obstructions due to soiling. We introduce a novel multi-sensor fusion approach tailored to adverse weather conditions. In addition to fusing RGB and LiDAR sensors, which are employed in recent autonomous driving literature, our sensor fusion stack is also capable of learning from NIR gated camera and radar modalities to tackle low light and inclement weather. We fuse multimodal sensor data through attentive, depth-based blending schemes, with learned refinement on the Bird's Eye View (BEV) plane to combine image and range features effectively. Our detections are predicted by a transformer decoder that weighs modalities based on distance and visibility. We demonstrate that our method improves the reliability of multimodal sensor fusion in autonomous vehicles under challenging weather conditions, bridging the gap between ideal conditions and real-world edge cases. Our approach improves average precision by 17.2 AP compared to the next best method for vulnerable pedestrians in long distances and challenging foggy scenes. Our project page is available at https://light.princeton.edu/samfusion/

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

43 extracted references · 40 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    In: Proceed- ings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition

    Bai, X., Hu, Z., Zhu, X., Huang, Q., Chen, Y., Fu, H., Tai, C.L.: Transfusion: Robust lidar-camera fusion for 3d object detection with transformers. In: Proceed- ings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition. pp. 1090–1099 (2022) 2, 3, 9

    work page 2022

  2. [2]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.15313 (2024) 4

    Baumann, N., Baumgartner, M., Ghignone, E., Kühne, J., Fischer, T., Yang, Y.H., Pollefeys, M., Magno, M.: Cr3dt: Camera-radar fusion for 3d detection and track- ing. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.15313 (2024) 4

    arXiv 2024

  3. [3]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition

    Bijelic, M., Gruber, T., Mannan, F., Kraus, F., Ritter, W., Dietmayer, K., Heide, F.: Seeing through fog without seeing fog: Deep multimodal sensor fusion in un- seen adverse weather. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. pp. 11682–11692 (2020) 1, 2, 4, 9, 10, 13, 14

    work page 2020

  4. [4]

    Bijelic, M., Gruber, T., Ritter, W.: A benchmark for lidar sensors in fog: Is de- tection breaking down? In: 2018 IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium (IV). pp. 760–767. IEEE (2018) 2, 3

    work page 2018

  5. [5]

    In: 2018 IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium (IV)

    Bijelic, M., Gruber, T., Ritter, W.: Benchmarking image sensors under adverse weather conditions for autonomous driving. In: 2018 IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium (IV). pp. 1773–1779. IEEE (2018) 2

    work page 2018

  6. [6]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision

    Brazil, G., Liu, X.: M3d-rpn: Monocular 3d region proposal network for object de- tection. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision. pp. 9287–9296 (2019) 10, 13

    work page 2019

  7. [7]

    In: IEEE International Confer- ence on Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITSC) (2023) 1, 2, 4

    Broedermann, T., Sakaridis, C., Dai, D., Van Gool, L.: Hrfuser: A multi-resolution sensor fusion architecture for 2d object detection. In: IEEE International Confer- ence on Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITSC) (2023) 1, 2, 4

    work page 2023

  8. [8]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition

    Caesar, H., Bankiti, V., Lang, A.H., Vora, S., Liong, V.E., Xu, Q., Krishnan, A., Pan, Y., Baldan, G., Beijbom, O.: Nuscenes: A multimodal dataset for autonomous driving. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition. pp. 11621–11631 (2020) 2, 10

    work page 2020

Show all 43 references
  1. [9]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.17099 (2023) 4

    Cai, H., Zhang, Z., Zhou, Z., Li, Z., Ding, W., Zhao, J.: Bevfusion4d: Learning lidar-camera fusion under bird’s-eye-view via cross-modality guidance and tempo- ral aggregation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.17099 (2023) 4

    2023 arXiv

  2. [10]

    IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelli- gence 43(5), 1483–1498 (2019) 9

    Cai, Z., Vasconcelos, N.: Cascade r-cnn: High quality object detection and in- stance segmentation. IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelli- gence 43(5), 1483–1498 (2019) 9

    2019

  3. [11]

    In: European conference on computer vision

    Carion, N., Massa, F., Synnaeve, G., Usunier, N., Kirillov, A., Zagoruyko, S.: End- to-end object detection with transformers. In: European conference on computer vision. pp. 213–229. Springer (2020) 9

    2020

  4. [12]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition

    Chen, X., Ma, H., Wan, J., Li, B., Xia, T.: Multi-view 3d object detection network for autonomous driving. In: Proceedings of the IEEE conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. pp. 1907–1915 (2017) 10

    1907

  5. [13]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition

    Chen, X., Zhang, T., Wang, Y., Wang, Y., Zhao, H.: Futr3d: A unified sensor fusion framework for 3d detection. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. pp. 172–181 (2023) 1, 4

    2023

  6. [14]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition

    Chen, Y., Li, Y., Zhang, X., Sun, J., Jia, J.: Focal sparse convolutional networks for 3d object detection. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. pp. 5428–5437 (2022) 3

    2022

  7. [15]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition

    Chen, Y., Liu, J., Zhang, X., Qi, X., Jia, J.: Largekernel3d: Scaling up kernels in 3d sparse cnns. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. pp. 13488–13498 (2023) 3 SAMFusion: Sensor-Adaptive Multimodal Fusion Method 17 Proceeding...

    2023

  8. [32]

    In: 2018 15th Conference on Computer and Robot Vision (CRV)

    Ku, J., Harakeh, A., Waslander, S.L.: In defense of classical image processing: Fast depth completion on the cpu. In: 2018 15th Conference on Computer and Robot Vision (CRV). pp. 16–22. IEEE (2018) 4

    2018

  9. [33]

    Naval Research Logistics (NRL) 52 (1955) 9

    Kuhn, H.W.: The hungarian method for the assignment problem. Naval Research Logistics (NRL) 52 (1955) 9

    1955

  10. [34]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition

    Lang, A.H., Vora, S., Caesar, H., Zhou, L., Yang, J., Beijbom, O.: Pointpillars: Fast encoders for object detection from point clouds. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition. pp. 12697–12705 (2019) 1, 3

    2019

  11. [35]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition

    Li, J., Wang, P., Xiong, P., Cai, T., Yan, Z., Yang, L., Liu, J., Fan, H., Liu, S.: Practical stereo matching via cascaded recurrent network with adaptive correla- tion. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition. pp. 16263–16272 (2022) 6

    2022

  12. [36]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition

    Li, P., Chen, X., Shen, S.: Stereo r-cnn based 3d object detection for autonomous driving. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. pp. 7644–7652 (2019) 10, 13

    2019

  13. [37]

    CoRRabs/2107.06307 (2021) 4

    Li, Q., Wang, Y., Wang, Y., Zhao, H.: Hdmapnet: An online HD map construction and evaluation framework. CoRRabs/2107.06307 (2021) 4

    2021 arXiv

  14. [38]

    Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 35, 18442–18455 (2022) 4

    Li, Y., Chen, Y., Qi, X., Li, Z., Sun, J., Jia, J.: Unifying voxel-based represen- tation with transformer for 3d object detection. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 35, 18442–18455 (2022) 4

    2022

  15. [39]

    In: Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence

    Li, Y., Ge, Z., Yu, G., Yang, J., Wang, Z., Shi, Y., Sun, J., Li, Z.: Bevdepth: Acquisition of reliable depth for multi-view 3d object detection. In: Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence. vol. 37, pp. 1477–1485 (2023) 4

    2023

  16. [40]

    Li, Z., Wang, W., Li, H., Xie, E., Sima, C., Lu, T., Yu, Q., Dai, J.: Bevformer: Learning bird’s-eye-view representation from multi-camera images via spatiotem- poral transformers (2022) 4

    2022

  17. [41]

    In:ProceedingsoftheIEEE/CVFConferenceonComputer Vision and Pattern Recognition

    Liang, M., Yang, B., Chen, Y., Hu, R., Urtasun, R.: Multi-task multi-sensor fusion for3dobjectdetection. In:ProceedingsoftheIEEE/CVFConferenceonComputer Vision and Pattern Recognition. pp. 7345–7353 (2019) 3

    2019

  18. [42]

    Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems35, 10421–10434 (2022) 2, 10, 12, 13

    Liang, T., Xie, H., Yu, K., Xia, Z., Lin, Z., Wang, Y., Tang, T., Wang, B., Tang, Z.: Bevfusion: A simple and robust lidar-camera fusion framework. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems35, 10421–10434 (2022) 2, 10, 12, 13

    2022

  19. [43]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition

    Lin, Z., Liu, Z., Xia, Z., Wang, X., Wang, Y., Qi, S., Dong, Y., Dong, N., Zhang, L., Zhu, C.: Rcbevdet: Radar-camera fusion in bird’s eye view for 3d object detection. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. pp. 14928–14937 (2024) 4

    2024

  20. [44]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision

    Liu, X., Zheng, C., Cheng, K.B., Xue, N., Qi, G.J., Wu, T.: Monocular 3d object detection with bounding box denoising in 3d by perceiver. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision. pp. 6436–6446 (2023) 3

    2023

  21. [45]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision

    Liu, Y., Yan, J., Jia, F., Li, S., Gao, A., Wang, T., Zhang, X.: Petrv2: A unified framework for 3d perception from multi-camera images. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision. pp. 3262–3272 (2023) 3, 4

    2023

  22. [46]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Workshops

    Liu, Z., Wu, Z., Tóth, R.: Smoke: Single-stage monocular 3d object detection via keypoint estimation. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Workshops. pp. 996–997 (2020) 3, 4 20 Palladin, Dietze et al

    2020

  23. [77]

    Xie, Y., Xu, C., Rakotosaona, M.J., Rim, P., Tombari, F., Keutzer, K., Tomizuka, M., Zhan, W.: Sparsefusion: Fusing multi-modal sparse representations for multi- sensor 3d object detection (2023) 1, 10, 13

    2023

  24. [78]

    In: 2021 IEEE In- ternational Intelligent Transportation Systems Conference (ITSC)

    Xu, S., Zhou, D., Fang, J., Yin, J., Bin, Z., Zhang, L.: Fusionpainting: Multi- modal fusion with adaptive attention for 3d object detection. In: 2021 IEEE In- ternational Intelligent Transportation Systems Conference (ITSC). pp. 3047–3054. IEEE (2021) 4

    2021

  25. [79]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision

    Yan, J., Liu, Y., Sun, J., Jia, F., Li, S., Wang, T., Zhang, X.: Cross modal transformer: Towards fast and robust 3d object detection. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision. pp. 18268–18278 (2023) 4

    2023

  26. [80]

    Sen- sors 18(10), 3337 (2018) 10, 13

    Yan, Y., Mao, Y., Li, B.: Second: Sparsely embedded convolutional detection. Sen- sors 18(10), 3337 (2018) 10, 13

    2018

  27. [81]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition

    Yang, B., Luo, W., Urtasun, R.: Pixor: Real-time 3d object detection from point clouds. In: Proceedings of the IEEE conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. pp. 7652–7660 (2018) 10

    2018

  28. [82]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition

    Yang, Z., Sun, Y., Liu, S., Jia, J.: 3dssd: Point-based 3d single stage object detec- tor. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition. pp. 11040–11048 (2020) 3

    2020

  29. [83]

    Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 35, 1992–2005 (2022) 1, 2, 3, 9, 10, 12, 13

    Yang, Z., Chen, J., Miao, Z., Li, W., Zhu, X., Zhang, L.: Deepinteraction: 3d object detection via modality interaction. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 35, 1992–2005 (2022) 1, 2, 3, 9, 10, 12, 13

    1992

  30. [84]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition

    Yin, T., Zhou, X., Krahenbuhl, P.: Center-based 3d object detection and track- ing. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition. pp. 11784–11793 (2021) 1, 3

    2021

  31. [85]

    Yin,T.,Zhou,X.,Krähenbühl,P.:Multimodalvirtualpoint3ddetection.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems34, 16494–16507 (2021) 4

    2021

  32. [86]

    In: Computer Vision–ECCV 2020: 16th European Conference, Glasgow, UK, August 23–28, 2020, Proceedings, Part XXVII 16

    Yoo, J.H., Kim, Y., Kim, J., Choi, J.W.: 3d-cvf: Generating joint camera and lidar features using cross-view spatial feature fusion for 3d object detection. In: Computer Vision–ECCV 2020: 16th European Conference, Glasgow, UK, August 23–28, 2020, Proceedings, Part XXVII 16. pp...

    2020

  33. [87]

    In: 2015 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA)

    Zhang, J., Singh, S.: Visual-lidar odometry and mapping: Low-drift, robust, and fast. In: 2015 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). pp. 2174–2181. IEEE (2015) 4

    2015

  34. [88]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition

    Zhou, Y., Tuzel, O.: Voxelnet: End-to-end learning for point cloud based 3d object detection. In: Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition. pp. 4490–4499 (2018) 3

    2018

  35. [89]

    In: International Conference on Learning Representations (2021) 4

    Zhu, X., Su, W., Lu, L., Li, B., Wang, X., Dai, J.: Deformable {detr}: De- formable transformers for end-to-end object detection. In: International Conference on Learning Representations (2021) 4

    2021

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.